« Shifting Populations, Shifting Economies | Main | If banks bought houses »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

If Ottawa wants to use its fiscal clout to bring about change in the federation, where should it direct its energies? More transfer money in return for reducing interprovincial trade barriers? More transfers in return for for harmonizing sales taxes? How about the following: a complete redesign of the allocation of taxes bases across the tiers of the Canadian federation and the federal transfer system.

The last bit is a rehash of the Rowell-Sirois Commission, which went nowhere. The Feds just persuaded the provinces to hand over EI in 1940 through an amendment to Section 91, and CPP/QPP was authorized by Section 94A. But experience shows it is very, very hard to get a province to give up its powers, they usually have to be bankrupt or uninterested in the field or both to sign on.

Or you could do what Australia did and hand payment for health care over to the Feds while provinces/states run the hospitals. Section 94A which makes the Feds "second payor" to the province where the citizen gets the benefit of both payments seems to be the logical place to start.

Historically, use of the Federal Spending Power to compel a province to do something is a recipe for acrimony and strife, and not just from Quebec.

I can't speak to the tax policy side of this, but while federal payment for a provincially delivered healthcare service sounds interesting, my fear is that it would lead to rapid wage rises in currently low-paying jurisdictions (e.g., Atlantic, Quebec) thus cancelling any gains.

Shangwen: living in a low=paying jusrisdictions, maybe being able to pay competitive wages on a national market would help solve the manpower shortage ( and don,t start me on college teachers...)

"More transfer money in return for reducing interprovincial trade barriers?

Yes, this is what Coyne points suggests in his article. But where are these interprovincial trade barriers?

Matthew:
On the one hand, examples that come immediately to my mind:1) different rules for trucking across provinces which can affect transporting goods cross country 2) different provincial licensing requirements for professionals: lawyers, doctors, nurses, trades people etc... 3) marketing boards 4) barriers to sale and or transport of alcohol across provinces. On the other hand, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has in the past said many of these barriers are a "myth". See: www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC_Office_Pubs/bc_2007/bc_ab_tilma_btn.pdf.

Livio,

Other examples include public procurement and construction (which was a source of big spat between Ontario and Quebec a few years ago). There are also a host of local procurement requirements, local processing requirements, agricultural restrictions (i.e., Quebec's infamous ban on coloured margarine, amongst others). A lot of them are petty little things individually, but add up in aggregate).

Curiously, the CCPA concludes that, because inter-provincial trade is low, the cost of inter-provincial trade barriers is low. One might think that the fact that inter-provincial trade is low is, on its face, a sign that the costs of inter-provincial trade barriers are high. The more fundamental provlem with the CCPA's analysis is that it is founded on the myth that these sorts of agreements override democratic government. For that to be true, these agreement would have to have constitutional status - they don't. Governments who don't like the results of dispute panels against them can (and, as we see at the WTO, do) ignore them. And, of course, they can be overridden by a mere act of Parliament/Legislature.

Most of the trade in manufactured goods is barrier-free and anyway, the country being split in two ( St-Lawrence basin and BC-AB)most of the trafic is within these two areas. Oil and gas flow unimpeded by provinces. The rest? Yep , Id like to buy more wine from ON and that this wine be paid by more ice cider. That trade is minuscule not because of trade barriers but because it would be minuscule in any case ( otherwise, there would be a srong lobby bfor it).
And some can't be legislated. A few years ago, I met a food manufacturer from QC. He had an english trade mark because market studies showed that a french name (for food!) polled badly. He even bought a small plant in ON so that customers could believe the things was from there. A couple of years later, he sold to a foreign entity who kept the same stategy. What federal budget position can cure that?

On the one hand, examples that come immediately to my mind:1) different rules for trucking across provinces which can affect transporting goods cross country 2) different provincial licensing requirements for professionals: lawyers, doctors, nurses, trades people etc... 3) marketing boards 4) barriers to sale and or transport of alcohol across provinces.

I'm indifferent to marketing boards (bad for a Dipper to say, but whatever). Except with respect to lawyers, I've never seen professional differences among provinces be a problem; mostly they are no more than an irritant or a curiosity. Quebec with its Civil Code is the only one that has a substantive difference which makes practising there for non-Quebec trained lawyers impossible (and quite right, too).

The Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act is federal law designed to reinforce the status of provincial liquor boards; it exists at the request and behest of provinces. In Ottawa it's mostly a dead letter as nobody searches cars on the interprovincial bridges.

Lastly, interprovincial trucking is a federal jurisdiction, AIUI. Contracting for transportation between two points between two points in one province by a trucker from another would be rare, I believe.

"That trade is minuscule not because of trade barriers but because it would be minuscule in any case ( otherwise, there would be a srong lobby bfor it)."

Isn't that a punchline to an old economist joke?

Economist #1: "Is that a twenty dollar bill on the floor?
Economist #2: "No, if it were, someone would have picked it up."

Consumers generally make lousy lobbyists. And many of the inter-provincial barriers to trade are designed (no doubt intentionally) to be opaque to all but their beneficiaries.

Bob SMith: "consumers make lousy lobbyists". Yep. But producers6 If they see athwarted makets, they'll descend on any vaguely breathing, Mp, deputy minister, hapless staff and editorial writer unlucky enough to be within 100 miles.
Remember the raw milk cheese affair some 20 years back. Within hours of the regulation, QC cheesemakers ( at the time, it could plausibly be said that an Ottawa wine-and-cheese was Baby Duck with Velveeta, thankfully no more...) had assembled avery QC, Italian, Greek and other "ethnic" (aka people who knew and cared about food) MPs for a tasting in the House lobby. Case closed.
Remember the thing about salt in cheese curds? Too much salt and the cheese can't melt in poutine nor produce the satisfying "squishsquish" when you eat it fresh. 3 days and AgCanada( it was before the CFIA)folded faster than wet paper.
And I just remember when I was a young staffer at the National Assembly in Québec City. The phone call we had at the beginning of the craft beer era. I think the whole thing was legalized just to let us have some sleep.

Things are solved fast when there is a market.


Livio:

If we are talking about different regulatory requirements across provinces then perhaps "barriers" isn't the best term here. I can see how such things would be irritants or compliance burdens for businesses though. Yes, different licensing requirments for occupations exist across provinces, but changes made the Agreement on Internal Trade in 2009 have required provinces to basically mutually recognize each other's regulated workers. When mutual recognition occurs its probably unnecessary for requirments to be the same.

You're certainly right about the marketing boards and alcohol - though a few provinces appear to have followed through on the recent federal changes and allowed for direct importation of wine.

Bob Smith:

Yes, some provinces tend to limit access to public procurment and the construction thing between ON and Quebec seems like a mess. On the other hand, the western provinces have a regional agreement that has opened up procurement and construction. Also, a lot of infamous these agricultural barriers (i.e. the margarine) have been challenged and removed. You wouldn't even need an act of the parliament or legislature to override a trade agreement. A trde agreement is really just a political commitment couched in legal language. They aren't part of the domestic law of a jurisdiction.

Anyway, my impression is just that Mr. Coyne - who in other articles seems to feel provinces are almost always small minded to the detriment of the country - exaggerates the barriers somewhat. However, the CCPA is off base in calling them a "myth". If the barriers are a myth then why do they seems to hate trade agreements so much?

Bob SMith: "consumers make lousy lobbyists". Yep. But producers6 If they see athwarted makets, they'll descend on any vaguely breathing, Mp, deputy minister, hapless staff and editorial writer unlucky enough to be within 100 miles.
Remember the raw milk cheese affair some 20 years back. Within hours of the regulation, QC cheesemakers ( at the time, it could plausibly be said that an Ottawa wine-and-cheese was Baby Duck with Velveeta, thankfully no more...) had assembled avery QC, Italian, Greek and other "ethnic" (aka people who knew and cared about food) MPs for a tasting in the House lobby. Case closed.
Remember the thing about salt in cheese curds? Too much salt and the cheese can't melt in poutine nor produce the satisfying "squishsquish" when you eat it fresh. 3 days and AgCanada( it was before the CFIA)folded faster than wet paper.
And I just remember when I was a young staffer at the National Assembly in Québec City. The phone call we had at the beginning of the craft beer era. I think the whole thing was legalized just to let us have some sleep.

Things are solved fast when there is a market.

PEI has raised the amount of wine I can bring into the province to a case per adult, but I have to bring it in myself, I'm not supposed to have it shipped in. While it's true they don't tend to search cars on the bridge, they obviously do searching under some premise as they occasionally apprehend cigarette smugglers. I wonder what would happen if they found me with a few extra cases of wine?
A number of wineries have stated their willingness regardless to ship into PEI, and my understanding is the shipping companies and Canada Post don't really care. Some wineries, however, still refuse, lessening my choice.

Hello Jacques:
I cannot find your comment in spam but I took it out of my email and will post it here:

Jacques-Rene-Giguere
“Bob Smith: "consumers make lousy lobbyists".

Yep. But producers? If they see a thwarted markets, they'll descend on any vaguely breathing, MP, deputy minister, hapless staff and editorial writer unlucky enough to be within 100 miles.

Remember the raw milk cheese affair some 20 years back? Within hours of the regulation, QC cheese makers ( at the time, it could plausibly be said that an Ottawa wine-and-cheese was Baby Duck with Velveeta, thankfully no more...) had assembled every QC, Italian, Greek and other "ethnic" (aka people who knew and cared about food) MPs for a tasting in the House lobby. Case closed.

Remember the thing about salt in cheese curds? Too much salt and the cheese can't melt in poutine nor produce the satisfying "squishsquish" when you eat it fresh. 3 days and AgCanada( it was before the CFIA) folded faster than wet paper.

And I just remember when I was a young staffer at the National Assembly in Québec City. The phone calls we had at the beginning of the craft beer era. I think the whole thing was legalized just to let us have some sleep.

Things are solved fast when there is a market.

"Yep. But producers? If they see a thwarted markets, they'll descend on any vaguely breathing, MP, deputy minister, hapless staff and editorial writer unlucky enough to be within 100 miles."

Well, that depends on the producers, doesn't it. Who has more clout with Quebec's politicians over public procurement issues, Quebec contractors (and their unions) or their Ontario counterparts? Who has more pull over Ontario beer legislation - BC or Alberta based craft-brewers, or the big two incumbents and the local craft-brewer whose facility hosted the premier's nomination party (hypothetically). We know the voice of foreign agricultural producers (and consumers) carries exactly no weight with the federal government on agriculture issues, even though changing those laws would benefit both Canadian consumer and other Canadian industries (who might gain better access to foreign markets if we were willing to sacrifice managed agriculture.

"Things are solved fast when there is a market."

I'm as free market as the next guy, but that just isn't true. See, for example, the annual tales of hoarding of canned cream in Newfoundland, which can't be imported in anywhere near the amounts needed to satisfy demand due to our dairy restrictions (http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/19/newfoundland-reeling-over-tinned-cream-shortage-that-retailers-blame-on-strict-dairy-supply-management-laws/). That answer almost perfectly embodies the "it isn't $20" parody of economists.

Interprovincial trucking is a bit of a weird area. Technically it is under federal jurisdiction(thus truck drivers work under the Canadian Labour Code) however, for the past 40 or 50 years in practice most of its regulation has been undertaken by the provinces. This is largely due to the fact that the provinces are almost exclusively responsible for road maintenance, vehicle licensing, and policing in the case of Ontario and Quebec. The only exceptions to this are the TCH through Banff and the other Western Parks(maintained by Parks Canada) and the National Capitol Commission that provides a 50 percent match for freeway construction and maintenance within a certain radius of Ottawa. Other than that with some rare exceptions(Champlain bridge??) the provinces are mostly on their own.

Both the US and Canada are probably going to have to consider road tolling on much greater scale in the future than in the past(Technically the US prohibits tolls on federal financed interstate highways). With modern technology such as what is on the Ontario 407 it is no longer the hindrance that it was 30 or 40 years ago(Remember too road tolling on the 407 was introduced by the Rae NDP government). In Canada it is less of hot potato as Canada has fewer miles of limited access highway and Ottawa on historical and legal grounds can wash its hands of the issue unlike the US federal government. The biggest problem with road tolling is in provinces who in living memory like BC and Quebec eliminated tolling when budget were flush to curry political favor.

On the surface while Canadian transport infrastructure seems much more expensive and inferior to that of the US it is built on much more solid financial grounds(see Nav Canada vs FAA Air Traffic Control) due to Mulroney and Chretien era reforms.

Sorry for going off track towards the end.

Bob Smith: when our main trade barriers are about canned cream, we're into first-world problems...

That canned cream in the National Post story just looks revolting, but a pretty good example of a silly trade barrier.

"Who has more clout with Quebec's politicians over public procurement issues, Quebec contractors (and their unions) or their Ontario counterparts?"

Sure, but I wonder why Quebec contractors wouldn't want a bigger piece of public procurement in other provinces. You would think that at least some would have ambitions outside of the province.

Matthew: they sense that the construction business would tutn out to be like the frozen vegetables markets ( see above). It may be wrong, but that's what they may fear.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

    WWW
    worthwhile.typepad.com
Blog powered by Typepad